Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive667

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Twinkle please[edit]

Admin SarekOfVulcan temporarily removed my twinkle 3 days ago [1] and told me to practise without it for a while. I have made 60 edits since then and i think i am eligible to get my twinkle back. Could someone remove my name from the blacklist please? Someone65 (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): After reviewing your edits, you definitely need to edit more without Twinkle before requesting it back. 60 edits over 3 days does not "a while" make. Twinkle is not necessary for editing or reverting. I would give it 30 days from the time of removal and then ask again. - NeutralhomerTalk • 12:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment): Suggest you work on improving your edit quality, and providing more accurate edit summaries. Aquib (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

User biography of 13 year old[edit]

I reverted (name redacted for user's protection after the fact) for an unsourced theory about Vanessa Hudgens's current dating status and I usually check user history to see if they have a past history of unsourced edits (nothing really questionable though here, just a fangirl who means well but needs to learn J-14 and Tiger Beat aren't proper sources). Read her userpage and it's written as a biography, but with details such as hometown, parents names and full name. Since she's thirteen should this one be reduced a little to be vague about those details? Nate (chatter) 00:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Given that it refers to named third parties and personal details of a minor, I've deleted it. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
    For future reference, stuff like that would fall under suppression guidelines, so notifying the oversight mailing list is a good move, though at least this was handled quickly. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Oversighted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, wasn't sure of the proper protocol. Have blanked out subject's name now that deletion has occured. Nate (chatter) 02:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

PMAnderson - another controversial/disruptive page move: Juan Carlos I[edit]

PMAnderson has once again unilaterally moved an article instead of submitting a move request via the WP:RM process.

Back in August (August, not November, this is important and easy to get confused about) was a discussion and decision about the title in which I was the closing uninvolved non-admin (trying to help with the backlog); the decision was to move Juan Carlos I of Spain to Juan Carlos I, as proposed:

Note the detailed explanation in my move decision comment there and the lack of any challenge to that decision at that time.

A subsequent discussion from November 2010 proposing that Juan Carlos I be moved to Juan Carlos:

This proposal was closed as no consensus.

For the last couple of days there has been a new discussion about all this (which I've followed but managed to restrain myself from participating, thank you very much), along with a move war apparently based on a misunderstanding which resulted in a 24 hour lock of the page just yesterday[2]:

Note the edit summaries of the brief move war that preceded the talk page discussion for those two reverts (User:GoodDay, odd) and the intervening moves (User:Kotniski, even) from yesterday:

  1. GoodDay: "moved Juan Carlos I to Juan Carlos I of Spain over redirect: There was no RM consensus to move this article to Juan Carlos I)"
  2. Kotniski: "moved Juan Carlos I of Spain to Juan Carlos I over redirect: this has been stable for long enough - do a move request if you want to change it)"
  3. GoodDay: "moved Juan Carlos I to Juan Carlos I of Spain over redirect: No consensus was reached for change to Juan Carlos, in last RM (November 2010))"
  4. Kotniski: "moved Juan Carlos I of Spain to Juan Carlos I over redirect: see explanation at talk - mover was looking at wrong discussion)"

Also note that the person moving the article yesterday, GoodDay, thought the discussion/decision he was challenging was the one from November, not August. On the talk page, this oversight was acknowledged.

Yet despite all that controversy, PMA took it upon himself to move the article soon after the lock expired despite any evidence whatsoever that there is consensus support for it[3], and clear evidence that there is opposition to it [4]

In the discussion just cited above, here is how PMA rationalizes engaging in the very behavior he has been warned repeatedly to not engage in[5]:

This would be reversing an improperly closed move request [edit: from 5 months ago, and after there was another intervening move request], closed by a non-admin who is deeply involved in such issues[my involvement in WP:NCROY issues, especially 5 months ago and prior, was very light], despite extenxive opposition. This was the 5-3 #Requested move (August 2010), above; not the more recent failed move request. This was not consensus then; it is not consensus now. If this cannot be simply reversed, we may have to request that the closer be sanctioned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The title since the improper closure is not stable. It was protested then and now, and a request to move it to a third possibility has been undertaken in the meantime. A move reuseat will only confirm this; but the proper placement without any consensus is where it was before this process began; which was the title for years. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with my move decisions being reviewed by an uninvolved neutral and possibly reversed; I welcome it, though I suggest after 5 months the grapes are way past being merely sour and I agree with Kotniski that at this point the only proper course to take is reassess consensus via another WP:RM discussion.

People accuse me of being disruptive for posting too much on talk pages about title issues, but while I might dream of pulling a stunt like this, I wouldn't actually do it. And believe me, it is a stunt, and PMA knows it (warned and even blocked more than enough times), but he obviously doesn't care. Is there anyone who does care?

Instead of reverting PMA's unilateral move myself, I decide to file this AN/I.

I know what I think should be done in this case, but my history with PMA suggests I best just report the facts and stay out of it, which is what I'm doing. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This is growing wearisome. Is there a page-move or article-titling controversy that PMAnderson is not at the center of? It never ends. I'm beginning to believe that, if he were removed from the matter entirely, 90% of all article-title wars would evaporate overnight. After seeing this go one for years, I am beginning to feel that he's an aggrivating force in these controversies, and something, perhaps some sort of community imposed editing restrictions, may be in order at this point. --Jayron32 05:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
There was an edit war on this unstable page before I acted; I explained my action at length on the talk page as restoring the status quo ante, in the absence of consensus. Any admin who sees consensus, or any group of editors who can establish one, is free to act on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Born2Cycle is again making a content disagreement with his own (improper) action into a conduct dispute.

is is manifestly improper; and there has been a discussion over the last several days protesting this move as ungrounded, including another replacement of the article where it was. (The explanation of my move as restoring the long-standing stable title is at the end.) Until an uninvolved admin decides there was consensus to move this page from its old title, where it was stable for years, it should stay there, shouldn't it? If an uninvolved admin finds there was consensus to move, he is free to do so. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if Born2Cycle were reminded not to close move discussions unless the result ismanifestly clear; and not to drag ANI into his content disputes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If anybody feels I should have dragged ANI into this myself, please say so, and I will apologize; but I try to avoid drama on this much-crowded page. If so, please consider it done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
As Fastily deleted the blocking redirect as uncontroversial, you should not have moved the page with no discussion. I've locked it in its current location to avoid move warring, but I think it belongs where the last RM discussion placed it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Was the last move discussion (actually the next-to-last, since Born2Cycle's action inspired another move request; there is no consensus on where his POV would place the article) properly closed? If not, why should an improper action have binding force? If any editor from one POV can close move requests to suit himself, the nationalist editors will have a heyday moving articles to suit their various Causes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
As I said before, Fastily deleted the redirect because of the move discussion, so I'm hesitant to call it an "improper action". And the last move request showed there was no consensus to move it away from the then-current title. You overrode two closed move requests without discussion. Regardless of what I may think of other parties' discussion styles, That Was Not Cool. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The discussion linked to above is not the only time Born2Cycle has been closing move requests to suit his preferences; he was also roundly criticized fot it here; and there may well be other cases; if may be useful to look at his move log. Can we at least agree that this should stop? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. As a single-purpose campaigner for a particular approach to article naming, Born2Cycle cannot in any reasonable way be considered to be uninvolved in RM discussions. I agree that this should stop, and if B2C does not explicitly commit to refraining from RM closures, enforcement should follow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Said closure was in August. Sanctioning him for it at this point would seem a bit much. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) The page was moved 5 months ago. Is Born2Cycle actually doing this now? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I voted on the proposal, so am not uninvolved. I didn't know Born2Cycle wasn't an admin, and the custom is that only admin closures are really binding when the close isn't obvious. However the latest name is now stable. Since there is so much anger, the most obvious solution is for some kind of majority poll where several possible locations are listed for 'discussion' but where there is no prejudice against any name because of precedent. Thoughts? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec) All I can say is that the name Born2Cycle moved it to didn't look stable to me. It was opposed at the time; it is protested now; and another move request in November suggested the article be moved to Juan Carlos, on the same arguments as Born2Cycle used. A discussion of all possibilities is the only way to reach consensus; but what if there isn't one - again? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
In my suggestion, there wouldn't need to be consensus; just a majority (no prejudice against any name because of precedent). If we are entirely honest about it neither name actually has "consensus" in any meaningful sense of the word. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The only reason the title is "not stable" is because someone admitted they were looking at the wrong discussion. And the other issue is that you (Pmanderson) have been previously told that your habits in moving pages is not welcome on this project, yet you still see fit to act without a consensus behind your actions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please put it back to the stable name (i.e. the one we had for many months before GoodDay through a mistake, and PMA in full awareness, came along and started tampering with it). If individuals are going to be allowed to just come along and impose their own preferences over consensus, we may as well abandon the discussion process altogether, and just decide on article titles according to who's best at maniuplating the move-warring game.--Kotniski (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The stable name is where the article was for at least five years; Born2Cycle's isn't. see comment above after edit conflict. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Sigh, I have to just say this since PMA is predictably trying to make this about me. Back then, five months ago, I was trying to help with the WP:RM backlog and I might have been a bit overambitious in that effort, including closing proposals that were not unanimous (if you limit yourself to only the unanimous ones, you can't help much at WP:RM). Anyway, I was called to task for that (though not for this one, and despite the fact that it's very common and uncontroversial for many other non-admins to do this as far as I can tell), and I've essentially stopped making potentially controversial decisions (and the WP:RM backlog grows).

The incident related to my behavior which PMA is questioning here is from five months ago and was not even questioned until the last day or so. The incident related to PMA's behavior that I'm questioning here is from less than five hours ago.

By the way, I have explained in more detail how and why I made that closing decision five months ago here. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

For information, I've opened a new discussion at Talk:Juan Carlos I of Spain about what the article should be titled. <moan>It seems always to be me who ends up starting the discussion process after disruptive behaviour, never the disruptive users themselves</moan>--Kotniski (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The August 2010 RM, should've been closed by an administrator. Though I supported having the page moved to Juan Carlos I (back in August 2010), I still object to the RM ruling & subsiquent move. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and have complained to Born2cycle a couple of times in recent weeks about his practice of moving articles to the title that matches his personal preferences, having "judged" the arguments subjectively rather than seeking consensus. I also see some inconsistency in his attitude to this move - compare with his comments at User_talk:NuclearWarfare#Peter_I_of_Russia where he agrees that controversial moves made without consensus should be reverted as soon as possible. Deb (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
You're conflating two different scenarios, Deb.
  1. Potentially controversial moves that occur without going through WP:RM (like what we were discussing at User_talk:NuclearWarfare#Peter_I_of_Russia, and what PMA did here) are widely held to be inherently wrong (regardless of whether the move is "right" or "wrong") and need to be reverted quickly and swiftly. Then, if someone really wants to move it, they are encouraged to go through WP:RM as should have been done in the first place.
  2. Decisions and moves that are made normally via the WP:RM process, but are questioned, including maybe because it was contentious and closed by a non-admin, are not inherently wrong and so should not be swiftly reverted but should be brought to the attention of admins, either at WT:RM or here at AN/I, so that an admin can review the closing and decide whether the decision was reasonable or not (and potentially reverse if not). This occurs at least a few times a year.
I believe my position on this has been consistent for years, if not forever, and I'm pretty sure it reflects the consensus of the community on how these matters should be handled.

If consensus has changed... that the rule about non-admins not closing contentious discussions should be strictly enforced, then, yes, I agree those kinds of moves should be swiftly reverted too. But as far as I can tell, non-admin closings of contentious discussions occur multiple times every day, and nobody seems to mind. It's not reasonable to have a consequence which treats these non-admin closings as being inherently wrong when the community does not generally treat them as being inherently wrong. That would be an inconsistency. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Two proposals[edit]


I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty much sick of these two editors appearing here over and over again for the same reasons, so I offer:

Proposal #1 (withdrawn)[edit]

User:Born2cycle is permanently banned from moving articles, and from participating in article move discussions anywhere on Wikipedia, including discussions about article titling guidelines or policies. He may, if he desires, make a single suggestion on an article talk page of a proposed move, but he may not add a requested move template to the talk page, and he may not participate in or close any move discussion that arises. This community ban may be appealed on WP:AN after 6 months.

  • Support - as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Huh? Did I do something wrong? --Born2cycle (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. B2C's flooding of dozens of discussions with the same arguments at extraordinary length is causing way too much disruption, and it's time to put a stop to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Seriously? Even if "flooding of dozens of discussions with the same arguments at extraordinary length is causing way too much disruption" did apply to my behavior, which I deny on several grounds, how is it disruptive (preventing people from editing articles)? And since when is staying out of edit wars and move wars and instead focusing on trying to achieve consensus through civil discourse on talk pages an offense at all, much less a sanctionable one? I thought that's what we're supposed to do? --Born2cycle (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
      • As you have been repeatedly told by many editors, your flooding of discussions causes WP:TLDR problems and turns them in a long series of debates with you rather than proper multi-way discussions. If anyone is inclined to believe your claim that it doesn't apply to you, just look at how B2C has flooded this RFC with about as many posts as all 50 other RFC participants put together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - B2C's move-discussion arguments may be a bit tiring, but this AN/I report appears to be made in good faith and trying to WP:BOOMERANG it back to B2C for something done in August seems a bit disproportionate. As best I can tell, B2C did the right thing here: report the problem rather than join in the move-warring. 28bytes (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Born2Cycle, like PMA, is a valuable contributor to the RM process, one who contributes intelligently if idiosyncratically. A ban on moving articles would be justified only by a pattern of habitual disruption; but as far as I can see his sin was not knowing the RM admin-preference custom ... 5 months ago. Punishing either of these users is not desirable at this stage, and think this poll is a distraction from finding a solution to the Juan Carlos problem. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It appears that B2C is to be banned from participation in move discussions for the sin of being persistent. It certainly can't be for incivility or even for acting outside consensus. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, B2C will no doubt take note of the advice given here about flooding discussions, other than that there doesn't seem to be any current problem with this user.--Kotniski (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - The editor is on a crusade, and crusades are not appropriate in wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Opposse - B2C meant well. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - too strict. Something more limited would be better. After all, his original point here, about PMA's non-consensus move, was valid. Someone else want to try to craft a #4?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Pretty much the only thing Born2cycle does these days is contribute to article move discussions, so his activities would be extremely restricted. I wish he would be more constructive, but I wouldn't want to force him into writing articles. Deb (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, with the hope that the user will take to heart the concerns about flooding discussions and badgering opponents to his article naming campaigns.   Will Beback  talk  19:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal #2 (withdrawn)[edit]

User:Pmanderson is permanently banned from moving articles, and from participating in article move discussions anywhere on Wikipedia, including discussions about article titling guidelines or policies. He may, if he desires, make a single suggestion on an article talk page of a proposed move, but he may not add a requested move template to the talk page, and he may not participate in or close any move discussion that arises. This community ban may be appealed on WP:AN after 6 months.

  • Support - as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Partial support. PMA's move was unwise. However, unlike B2C, PMA does not flood or overwhelm discussions, so should not be banned from that. IF PMA is restricted to the discussion pages rather than to performing moves, I don't see a problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I repeat my comments on Proposal 1. PMA's problem is that he loses his temper more easily than he should, but he is a valuable contributor to RM discussions and gagging him would be bad for the process and Wikipedia. And I say that as someone who disagrees with him frequently. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it's not PMA's discussion of moves that's the issue here, it's unilateral moves themselves. If he agrees to takes a move he wants to do to RM and discuss it, that would seem to solve the problem, no? 28bytes (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see any reason to stop PMA participating in RM discussions. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Deacon (and as someone else who disagrees with him frequently).--Kotniski (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, ain't nothing wrong with passion. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no particular reason I see to ban him from the discussions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


Proposal #1 and 2 above clearly did not represent the general feelings of the community, so I withdraw both of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposals[edit]

Proposal #3 withdrawn

Proposal #3 — withdrawn in favor of Proposal #6, below[edit]

User:Pmanderson is banned from moving articles and from closing any move discussions. He is, however, welcome to propose moves and add requested move templates to the talk page, and he is welcome to participate in any move discussions to make his case why moves should or should not be done.

  • Comment as proposer: I don't know if this is the right solution, but IMO it seems to get closer to the issue at hand here. 28bytes (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • If anything, this would indeed seem to address the actual problem at hand, though I would add "when knowingly controversial" or something like that, so as not to get in the way of normal useful behaviour.--Kotniski (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • With that condition added, it sounds fair. Even if I think Pmanderson is "right" in his moves, he shouldn't do it without something resembling consensus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I don't view Pmanderson as disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I have never closed a move discussion - and would not do so unless there was an enormous backlog and unanimous consent that a page be moved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal #4[edit]

WP:NCROY is marked as deprecated or failed proposal, as it clearly doesn't have anything resembling site-wide consensus, and appears to be a platform from which move-wars are regularly launched.

  • Support as proposer. *** Crotalus *** 15:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, per the growing inconsistancies of monarchial article titles. There was a time when we had'em all nice & neat under Monarch # of country. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The exceptions are clearly delineated, despite the amount of argument they entail, and we need something of the sort to get consistency for historical names.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It isn't a proposal; it has been a guideline for four years - probably longer - and it has been our practice for much longer; I believe the distinction between policy and guideline is younger than this page. The convention has evolved to cover a complex area of article naming; those who would simplify it either to establish an artificial consistency or to have no consistency at all have always rebutted each other. This is the middle ground. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sarek of Vulcan. There are many possible approaches to naming this sort of article, and the guideline provides stability for thr bast majority of articles within its scope. --17:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose procedurally. If there is a desire to change or deprecate a guideline, it must be done through discussion on that guideline's talk page, not through a discussion of a limited number of admins on ANI. Resolute 17:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it's useful, particularly for new users, to have some guidance with the aim of achieving consistency - but maybe the conventions ought to be frozen for a while to give us all a chance to recover. Deb (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: a necessary naming convention for a field with confusing naming options. Also, this is the wrong venue to make the decision.   Will Beback  talk  19:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal #5[edit]

That Born2Cycle be admonished not to close move requests made through WP:RM. This is slightly more restrictive than most non-admins; but since he has been

  • closing move requests without noting that he is a non-admin - and this discussion shows this has led to some people assuming that he has made an admin close
  • closing move requests without consensus
  • closing them on issues on which he has a strong POV, in accordance with his POV. Admins should not close issues in which they are involved; why should non-admins?

this seems reasonable and minimal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. If he has stopped doing this, so much the better. if not, it's time to stop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, as only administrators should close & make rulings on RMs. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • That's goes against what Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions says. I agree that this particular close probably wasn't suitable for a non-admin but non-admins have always been allowed to close certain RMs so it seems perverse to penalise someone on the grounds you give. Dpmuk (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I have been told in the past that there is no need to note that you are a non-admin when closing a requested move and indeed there is nothing that says you have to at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. Therefore I think your first point is unfair. No comment on the rest. Dpmuk (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Most non-admins do, however, say Non-admin close; it may not be necessary, but it will save a reviewing admin trouble. Non-admins should be free to close requests where there is no doubt of consensus - and no admin action is required. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Well I haven't been saying NAC since this comment on my talk page and because of what it says in the instructions (when I have been pushing the boundaries a bit, and only a bit, recently to help clear the backlog I've made it clear in the edit summary that I was a non-admin). It has also become accepted practice for non-admins to use G6 if necessary after an uncontroversial close (many more admins seem willing to do a G6 than close a RM so this speeds things along). I'd agree that non-admins shouldn't be closing anything that requires more complex action than a G6. Dpmuk (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
            • The point is only really important in conjunction with the other two problems. If everybody who looked at B2C's closes had said, "Yes, of course, anybody would do that; it's obviously consensus", we wouldn't be here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
              • That's a standard nobody can meet. Many RM closes can go either way, and the outcome often depends on who closes it and how they decide it. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
                • Which is exactly why someone with strong opinions[6] on article naming should not close them.   Will Beback  talk  23:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose In most, if not all RM closers, there are hurt feelings. It doesn't matter if the user closing is an Admin or not. Singling out Born2Cycle because he makes many RM closings, that many admins are not willing to do, is a bit much. He should be rewarded not admonished. I have suggested in the past, that there should be a non admin privilege, similar to Rollback, that allows non admins to close RM discussions. This way, not every non-admin can close an RM, and closings can be monitored more easily, and the tool taken away for abuse, like Rollback privileges.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The issue with Born2Cycle isn't just that he isn't an admin, but that he strongly opposes naming conventions that don't strictly follow the common name principle. He is not a neutral party. Both of the royalty article moves he made in contradiction to the royalty naming convention.   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
He may very well have had a conflict of interest on these closures, but that is why I propossed to have Non Admin closures as a privalege, same as Rollback, rather than something any non admin can do on their own.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support -- he has been closing discussions that were borderline enough to make admin closes preferable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: a partisan should not be closing move discussions. The user is not a neutral observer in page name disputes.   Will Beback  talk  19:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment. I'm curious... Will, do you believe this rule, "a partisan should not be closing move discussions", applies only to me, or also to all the partisans who have voted in support of this proposal so far?

      Also, please remember that everybody has a bias... the issue is whether that bias is put aside in making decisions from an NPOV. When was the last time you think I made a non-NPOV decision in an RM discussion? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

      • Giving a view in an ANI thread does not make one a partisan.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Of course giving a view here is not what makes them partisans. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose a formal ban but would suggest that B2C consider voluntarily excusing himself from closing RM discussions on topics where his strong views on naming (which I share in general) are well known. Not only should closers be fair, they should be seen to be fair. However well B2C interprets consensus, his known and entirely legitimate POV will mean that a significant grouping of editors will feel, fairly or otherwise, that the decision has been prejudged. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal #6[edit]

As I see it, there are two problems here:

  1. The initial NAC close of the Juan Carlos I move discussion by User:Born2cycle, which was a poor decision since Wikipedia:Requested moves (which B2C is no doubt familiar with, having edited it himself on occasion) specifically advises non-admins against closing discussions that are contentious.
  2. The unilateral subsequent page move by User:Pmanderson, when he knew there was serious contention about the title.

To avoid problems of this nature in the future, I propose:

  1. Born2Cycle be advised not to close any move requests, and
  2. Pmanderson be advised not to make any unilateral page moves unless the move is clearly non-controversial and has not been subject to any debate in the past. He is advised to take all but the most obviously non-controversial move proposals to WP:RM for broader discussion.
  • Support, as proposer. 28bytes (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Whatever my action may have been, it wasn't unilateral; I knew there was a problem because there were loud complaints at WT:NCROY, and I found more on the talk page. I restored the status quo after other people objected to the move; isn't that proper when the propriety of a move is plausibly disputed and there is no consensus? If somebody can see consensus or make one, fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • There are often complaints about moves - those are not excuses to justify the unilateral decision to move it back. Complaining about a move is not the same as supporting an immediate revert. The proper course in egregious cases of improper moves is to take it to an admin or file an AN/I, as I did here, or request it be moved back as uncontroversial at WP:RM (though that usually applies to only recent improper moves). Starting a move war is not the right answer. When questioning a decision/move that went through WP:RM, the proper course is to ask another admin to review the decision, not to unilaterally decide to revert it yourself. If an admin agrees the decision was improper, then the admin will revert it. But you know all this, yet you reverted anyway. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although WP:RM specifically advises that non-admins should not close discussions that are contentious, that is not common practice. In these days of a large WP:RM backlog, it is common practice for non-admins who are knowledgeable and experienced with naming policy and the RM process to close all kinds of discussions, including relatively contentious ones. It is unfair to single out one of those non-admins for engaging in behavior five months ago that the community largely considers acceptable despite what WP:RM states.

    PMA has been advised to not make unilateral moves before. He continues to do it, as long as he feels it's justified, and continues to defend it. See above. These are empty words. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Go to RFCU or pretty much anyplace else[edit]

Good gravy. If the solution to a problem requires a poll with six options, ANI is not the venue of choice. Please move this to a more appropriate venue or seek actual dispute resolution. Protonk (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Can someone please look past all the disruption above about an incident from 5 months ago and address the incident in question (from yesterday), please? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Implement the community sanction for which there is already consensus[edit]

At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and Byzantine names#Proposed community restriction concerning Pmanderson, there is a community sanction proposed by me which I believe has community consensus for implementation. It looks like it was forgotten about after being split to a subpage, but just needs an administrator to evaluate and close the discussion, and to note the sanction at WP:GS.  Sandstein  00:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that Sandstein's proposal had consensus, but perhaps was forgotten, after being moved to an ANI subpage. Mathsci (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
This proposal would have most definitely prevented this thread. It should be implimented—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely. I don't know how PMA even found himself at Juan Carlos I except to rip at his "opponent" (no history of him at that page -or- commenting on the previous threads he cited concerning it). Doc talk 08:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Clearly this thread has gone on too long; nobody reads all of it. As I said above, I got to the page from WT:NCGN#Juan Carlos I, the governing guideline, where there are vitriolic complaints about B2C's original move, as not consensus. I agreed - and I am one of the majority on the !vote now ongoing who agree with the guideline - so I replaced the article to the status quo pending either a determination by a neutral admin that there was consensus, or the formation of a new consensus. Under the same circumstances, I would have done so no matter who had moved it first (that the mover was not a neutral admin are two of the circumstances). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm dubious about whether you would have done the same if it wasn't me, but if so, that would be even worse. Consider the coincidentally similar situation that occurred at Talk:Ann Arbor a few days ago. A non-admin closed the discussion and moved when there was no indication of consensus support. In that case, unlike in mine, the mover who was not a neutral admin did not even leave an explanation, explaining how the arguments were weighed, or anything like that. What you're saying is you would have reverted it. That's wrong. I didn't. I brought it to the attention of admins to let them decide. And that was a "fresh" move, not one that had been stable for 5 months. I still wouldn't unilaterally reverse an action that was part of the WP:RM process, no matter how confident I was in it being blatantly wrong. I respect the process the community has established for these kinds of things. That's the difference between you and most of the rest of the community, and what this is ultimately about. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see unanimity at Talk;Ann Arbour; but it is much closer to consensus than either of your closures (especially if repetitions by the same editor are discounted). But this comes up against another circumstance; I agree with that closure, and reversing it on procedural grounds alone would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; it would not serve the encyclopedia. All are necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging that the crucial difference for you about whether a unilateral reversal by a non-admin of a closure is justified is whether you happen to agree with it. That's the problem. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this would have prevented the current situation. I was seriously considering reverting the move of Juan Carlos I myself and was pleased that someone else did. The discussion at the article's talk page now does appear to vindicate (though it does not excuse) PMA's action. I also think that the dropping off of interest in the original proposal shows that there is less of a will to carry out these sanctions than might be thought from looking at the original discussion. I think that is partly because of the subsequent problematic actions of another user. Would Sandstein be prepared to repeat his proposal here and people can comment on whether they still think the action appropriate? (A simple "Yes" or "No" should suffice.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb (talkcontribs)
The discussion has already taken place at length here on ANI. The result is clear; it just needs to be implemented.  Sandstein  17:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest what all this shows is how many do not apply the NPOV principle to these issues of internal strife. A lot of people obviously feel animosity towards me due because they disagree with me on issues involving article titles and how vocal I am, and seem frustrated that they can't "punish me" by any legitimate mechanism, so try to get away with as much punishment as possible, perhaps subconsciously, any chance they get. And when I make a non-admin move, about the only blemish in my record (never mind that non-admin closes of contentious RM discussions are generally treated as acceptable by the community despite what WP:RM states), that's a chance, even if it was five months ago (they'll take what they can get). To see if PMA's behavior is being judged neutrally here, I suggest the following questions be considered:
  • If, back in August, someone besides me, anyone but me, had made the same closing decision I had (it's not as idiosyncratic as some seem to imply - there have been countless RM decisions made by deciding consensus by quality of argument rather than raw vote count of those participating when raw vote count is a majority but not a big one), and, PMA would have reversed it the way he did five months later, and someone besides me filed this ANI, would there be any difference in how this discussion would be going? If so, why would that matter in deciding whether PMA's move was justified and whether it should be reverted and he sanctioned?
  • Would there be any difference in how the current voting at Talk:Juan Carlos I is going?
  • Would PMA have even made that revert if it wasn't me who had made that original decision?
  • Let's be honest, and I'm not the first to even suggest this. Didn't PMA do this revert precisely in order to take a swipe at me rather than improving the encyclopedia? Isn't that what this is really all about? If he did it in order to take a swipe at anyone other than me would his action be judged any differently? If so, is that okay? It's okay to take a swipe at me because you can't "get me" for anything else? Really? Is this Wikipedia or junior high?
Does anyone believe these people are even trying to be neutral here? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
B2C, you have consistently taken a highly partisan view on naming issues. That's your privelige, but when your main activity is campaigning for a particular approach to naming, it is complete nonsense for you to claim that your own weighing of arguments in an RM discussion is neutral or uninvolved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if you're serious or just trying to bait me, but I'm taking this seriously. And thank you for recognizing the consistency in the positions I take. I try to reach all positions I take about naming by following logical paths from the underlying principles outlined at WP:TITLE; that's why they're consistent. If you're talking about the party of principle, yeah, I'm partisan.

First, the conflict of interest rule only restricts us from closing discussions that we've participated in. I had not participated in that discussion prior to my evaluation and closure. Extending that rule to argue that someone with a strong opinion about naming should be restricted from making such decisions arguably has some merit, but I suggest that consensus for new rules needs to be established before they are enforced, and certainly should not be enforced if they are established five months after the incident in question. As far as I know consensus for such a rule has not been established. If you know otherwise, please let me know.

Second, we're all biased and it's challenging to put our biases aside in these situations to make neutral decisions (for example, the challenges you're having in trying to be neutral here, if you're actually trying, are quite obvious, as demonstrated by your ignoring the questions and issues I just raised about you and others not being neutral here with respect to evaluating PMA's behavior, and instead shifting to the question of my neutrality at the decision 5 months ago), but I believe I did that reasonably well in that case, within tolerances generally accepted by the community, though I acknowledge it's not ultimately up to me to decide.

Third, whether that or any other closing RM decision was unjustified due to any reason including bias from the closing non-admin is a question that an admin should consider when reviewing the decision. It is not a decision for another biased partisan like PMA, you, Bugs, GoodDay, or Deb to make, five months later, to justify an RM-avoiding revert based on that decision. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

How am I biased? I'm a republican who doesn't push his polticial PoV on monarchial articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
"Biased?" Funny stuff, coming from a user who's on an agenda he acknowledges will go on for years, and which is of no value whatsoever to the wikipedia readers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Anyone who doesn't think he or she is biased is making my point.

I don't deny my bias. Acute awareness of one's bias is required to be neutral. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can explain how I am "biased", you had best not make that comment again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It may be preferable to deny one's bias and not let it guide one's actions, than to proclaim it and act on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, of course. That should go without saying. But it's virtually impossible to not be influenced by bias of which you are unaware, or in denial about. The first step towards neutrality is awareness of bias. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
And the second step is not to act on your bias where impartiality is required. On this matter, you are an advocate, not a judge. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
You and I disagree about whether my advocacy for adherence as much as reasonably possible to the principle naming criteria set forth at WP:TITLE makes it impossible for me to be an impartial judge, but the point is it's not a matter for either of us to decide. That's why the community has created rules against making unilateral moves when there is potential objection, a WP:RM process, users with administrative privileges, and mechanisms like AN/I. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────You have yet to explain how some conformist "guideline" overrides common usage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see: User:Born2cycle/FAQ#5._Please_explain_how_some_conformist_.22guideline.22_overrides_common_usage.. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I am no longer interested in reading anything you have to say about this subject, and have taken any connections to it off my watchlist. Your efforts are of no value whatsoever to wikipedia's readers, and eventually someone is going to put the brakes on your little crusade. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

For an example of a properly held & closed RM, check out the discussion at St. Louis Blues. -- GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Another example (though B2C didn't do it) of an article RM being declared 'consensus to move' hastily & without consensus, is the article Ivan the Terrible being moved from Ivan IV of Russia. I'd hardly call a 4-2 support, a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Make that 5-2, (I am surprised I said nothing); probably still not consensus, but Ivan is one of the monarchs overwhelmingly known by nickname (to quote the guideline). But it can wait till next time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it me, or has this section gone completely off-topic???? Deb (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That is because there is currently no consensus for an interaction ban between Pmanderson and Born2cycle. However, as this subsection started, it is clear that the page move ban that the community decided on for Pmanderson should be implimented, and this whole spectacle of a thread could have been avoided.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Clear, perhaps, to a half-dozen tendentious editors who would find my absence more convenient; User:Ryulong, for example, would like to own Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), and thinks my absence would make it easier; I doubt it: he is currently warring with Jpatokal and with Jinnah, and arguing with everyone else on the guideline talk-page for a bizarre reading of WP:PRIMAYSOURCES and for what he himself calls "my rules" (i.e. the ones Ryulong made up) of Romanization. Really, one gets tired of the same voices purporting to be neutral. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
My actions on other project pages has nothing to do with the current consensus to ban you from moving pages in the article space, Pmanderson. Stop trying to throw blame on other editors. And there is no edit warring going on at that page, only a discussion on what should and should not be capitalized ("my rules" refers to the guidelines I put forward for when or when not to capitalize certain short words in romanicized Japanese).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Your revert-warring against me (and others; how many exact reversions have you done on that page? This is the latest) has nothing to do with your repeated call for sanctions against me. Let who will believe that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
That edit is over the placement of a template pointing to a discussion on the talk page. Hardly a reversion unlike ones that had been done in the past to your radical changes to the guideline that had no consensus. Now stop changing the topic.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I would like to return to what I said above. I am not convinced that there is still consensus, and we either need to address this point or abandon the discussion. Deb (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    There was a consensus (15 supports/3 opposes/1 neutral) then but because the discussion went into a subpage (after the consensus was formed) it was never implimented. It is blatantly clear that by allowing Pmanderson to move pages as he sees fit will continue to cause unrest in the community (if not just Born2cycle). His blatant attempts to cast aspersions elsewhere throughout this discussion when they are entirely unrelated to the topic at hand (his mention of the current discussions on WT:MOS-JA and a completely out of context accusation on my use of the phrase "my rules" in one of those discussions) are another issue and are the only reason that this whole thread has gone all over the place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    There were half-a-dozen tendentious editors who set up a private subpage of ANI. This is one of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    My contributions to that page took place long before the subpage was created so your accusations are moot.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    In short, another editor who insists that he may prosecute me, but his own actions - and the private enmity which inspires his persistence here - are above criticism. Hello, kettle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    I am not saying I should not be criticized. What I am saying is that your constant criticisms of my past actions to pages completely unrelated to the dispute that spurned this thread have nothing to do with the issue at hand which is that there is a standing consensus to ban you from moving pages and restricting your contributions to the page moving process that has never been implimented and would have prevented this mess from ever happening.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Whoa! You're doing it again - both of you! Please, both, go away from this discussion for a while or something else will start up. I want User:Sandstein to comment (again), if he will. Deb (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    Fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I have already replied above: The discussion has already taken place at length here on ANI. The result is clear; it just needs to be implemented. And the back-and-forth above is beyond silly; please take your private disagreements elsewhere.  Sandstein  23:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand your point of view on this. However, actions which seemed obvious at the time ought to be reviewed in the light of subsequent developments. The fact that there have been no additional comments on the discussion page for over a fortnight suggests that those with an interest in seeing PMA's activities restricted have become distracted by other matters. Even in this section, they are unable to stick to the matter in hand. If things are left the way they are, it would look odd for that old decision to be implemented now. Deb (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The only reason that people can't stay on topic is because PMA starts baiting other editors he has had disputes with by bringing up said disputes to try and make him seem like the person in the right. PMA should most definitely have restrictions on his ability to change the titles of pages. The only reason that /Pmanderson and Byzantine names has been untouched in so long is because it disappeared from this page. That's what happens to every single thread that gets turned into a subpage and that's what's likely to happen with this thread because PMA and B2C cannot seem to play nice.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No, actually, we do stay on topic. Both Ryulong's private reasons for wanting me sanctioned, and the underlying content dispute that he and others would like to settle as a conduct dispute, are on-topic here. The effort to reduce this to "PMA bad" is further from the real issues, and closer to baiting, than anything I have said. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
But there is no reason to bring up our previous dispute or my actions elsewhere on the project in this thread. It's not related to the fact that you moved a page without consensus behind your actions and that the resulting drama could have been prevented by the community sanction at /Pmanderson and Byzantine names.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure it would be more convenient for you to pose as a neutral voice when you are not. But that does not make it off-topic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Since when was I portraying myself as a neutral opinion? It is plain to see that I am not.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for admitting it; in short, only my enemy supports this sanction - repetitiously and interminably. Should it be imposed? Deb, will you put an end to this thread, please? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd be hard pressed to believe that everyone who supported the sanction (User:Mkativerata, User:Chester Markel, User:Mathsci, User:Born2cycle, User:Dr.K., User:Jerem43, User:ResidentAnthropologist, User:GoodDay, User:Aldux, myself, User:Wjemather, User talk:Tijfo098, User:Cplakidas, User:Greg L, User:Hobartimus) is your enemy. Also, Deb would not be allowed to end this as she opposed the sanction and would not have consensus in saying it did not apply.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:Parrot of Doom[edit]

Resolved: Whishtwhishtwhishtwhisht*SMACK!* HalfShadow 04:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Parrot of Doom is edit warring, now for a third time, at Hanged, drawn and quartered. He refuses to use the talk page and insisted first on forcing a student essay in, failing that he now is forcing in a ref in which the ref itself clearly and unequivocally states:
  • "No documents have surfaced to tell us precisely why these indulgences in overkill were considered necessary. We are free to speculate. The following are four possibilities, perhaps you can come up with others."
That quote is found on the ref page Parrot himself cites. Parrot is also on record, several times, stating that he wants to be blocked or have the page locked. He did manage to lock it once, indeed it just reopened hours ago. (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Blocked reporting IP 24 hrs for 3RR violation and being obviously unreasonable. [Please insert topic-related joke about appropriate level of sanctions here.] Fut.Perf. 22:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Diffs please? Opps same time posting.Slatersteven (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not certain the IP has broken the 3RR rule so you may want to double-check the legitimacy of that block. Parrot of Doom 23:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
[7][8][9][10] seemed pretty unambiguous to me. Am I misreading something? Fut.Perf. 00:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I missed the first revert. My mistake. Parrot of Doom 00:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. The statement above contains several inaccuracies. Firstly, I have not refused to use the talk page, rather I have disengaged from discussing the matter with this editor because it seems we are unable to agree on anything. Interested parties will note that I have discussed the matter at length with other editors on the article's talk page, on my talk page and to a lesser extent on the reliable sources noticeboard. Secondly, I have never expressed a desire to be blocked, I simply do not care if I am or not as a block is of no consequence to me. Similarly, at no point (AFAIK) have I ever said I would like the page locked. Lastly, I have no administrative powers here so am unable to lock anything. Parrot of Doom 23:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I have been involved in this and there is related discussion at my talk page. As far as I can see the issue was decided in talk and the anon user just wants to wind up PoD (perhaps because of some pre-existing grievance?). Good block. --John (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Cluebot, Stevie Wonder, and I[edit]

I've been playing with my new toy (not my old one, although that's more fun it's also more chafing... no, I mean the Reviewer bit) and came across an edit at Stevie Wonder by Cluebot... my only option was to reject the edit, even though I couldn't see it. The bot edit was already accepted. What's up with that? Cluebot problem or pending pages problem? Doubt 'tis by design. Sorry if this isn't an admin issue but thought it best to bring it to the community's attention. Egg Centric (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It is cluebot being speedy. It had obviously reverted the edit you were about to check just before you clicked to do the review. I just ignore it, and double check the history to make sure the bot got it right (cluebot ng seems to be catching an awful lot of vandalism at the moment, really smart stuff) --Errant (chat!) 23:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Not possible to modify cluebot to automatically reject the edit then? Egg Centric (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
An interesting idea. Seems like something that could be programmed, i.e. to check and see if the article is on the "pending revisions" list. I assume you're referring to this one?[11]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep. Alternatively, maybe the rejected editons feature could recognise reverts like that as automatic rejection if frmo a higher level user. But I can see pitfalls Egg Centric (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Speaking personally, I believe Cobi, the maintainer of ClueBot NG's Wikipedia interface, would technically be able to reject a pending revision instead of reverting text; however, this may be quite a bit of extra work for a somewhat cosmetic matter. Not only that, I was lead to believe that a pending revision which is rejected is simply another revision to the article, which removes the pending text and marks it as an accepted version, which isn't any different from what the bot does now. -- SnoFox(t|c) 00:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Unless there's a significant amount of vandalism posted as pending changes, I think Cluebot should leave FR articles alone. Human reviewers can handle it. (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Article owership and discourtesy[edit]

I recently attempted to edit Lyndon LaRouche. My edits were quickly reverted by Will Beback and SlimVirgin, with memos advising that there must be discussion and consensus before the edits could be made. After reverting, both editors declined to engage on the discussion page. At Wikipedia:Ownership of articles it is written as an "example of ownership behaviour" that "justified article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not." After careful inspection of both the article history and the discussion page archives, I see a pattern of this throughout the past years, with always the same two editors, Will Beback and SlimVirgin, exercising ownership over the article. When they have responded at all to comments on the discussion page, their responses have been dismissive. I should like to see administrative action to ensure that they cease this ownership behaviour. (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's see: you tried to remove a large amount of material from an article on a contentious subject, you were reverted and told to get consensus on the talk page, you posted on the talk page and Will responded, but there's been no consensus determined. You've been treated decently, the only off-note being the suggestion that you seem to know a lot about the article for a "new 'editor, and I concur with that speculation. This is essentially a content dispute, and the only misbehavior I can see is yours, bringing the matter here unnecessarily -- so unless you want admins to take some action against you, I suggest there's nothing to be done here. You've got no beef with Will or SV, their behavior has been fine, go back to the talk page and see if there's a consensus for your edits (but I wouldn't hold my breath, there won't be). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I suppose that you could say that, technically, Will responded, by making a post in which he attempted to evade and dismiss my point. When I pressed the matter, he then became quite discourteous and announced that he would no longer participate in the discussion. I suppose that you could also say that it is a content dispute, but when there are two editors that control all content and revert out of hand when other editors attempt to participate, then it becomes a matter of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. I should like to re-emphasize that from what I could glean from the discussion articles, Will routinely treats other editors this way. SlimVirgin, on the other hand, makes whatever edits she pleases and ignores the discussion page altogether. So much for "consensus." (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
What account names have you edited un der previously? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I have edited without establishing an account name. Why am I being asked this? Do the rules apply differently when a request is made by someone who has no acount name? I have edited numerous articles without incident, but I must say that my attempt to edit Lyndon LaRouche has been an eye-opening experience for me. I realise now that I could have saved myself a few hours of labour, going through the article and discussion history, had I only heeded the admonition of another editor who said on the discussion page that "anyone who dares edit or comment on this article should first watch this superb series of instructional videos." (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI (non-incident)[edit]

This is not an incident, only a notification. This message board just achieved it's six hundred and sixty sixth archive. A bit ominous, maybe? Basket of Puppies 20:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Its a sign of 2012 the end of the world I am sure of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there something special about 666? It's actually a very good number in some cultures, you know... T. Canens (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's one of the few numbers divisible by both 333 and 37, if that helps. It's also one of the two numbers (the other being 616 - there's some confusion about the translation) that's supposed to be the "mark of the anti-Christ" or some such. Some thought Ronald Wilson Reagan was the anti-Christ, being as how he had 6 letters in each name. The jury's still out on that one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there are an infinite amount of numbers divisible by both 333 and 37. A wouldn't call infinite "a few". --Jayron32 22:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It's fewer than the number of numbers divisible by 1. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, no. They are both countably infinite and so of the same size. T. Canens (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Every number that's divisible by 333 is divisible by 37... T. Canens (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Can a RfC and subsequent calls for topic bans and indefinite blocks of editors in regard to the subject of the divisibility of the numbers 37 and 333 be far off? This is, after all, Wikipedia... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The real part of e666i is 0.9998 and the imaginary part is -0.0176, which are almost equal to 1 and 0. You can't tell me that's "just a coincidence." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • What about e666.66666...i ? --Cyclopiatalk 17:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
That is binary logic, isn't it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not coincidence. It's because π = 666/212 near as dammit. I wonder what the real and imaginary parts of e52163i are? Rich Farmbrough, 00:56, 24th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Eyes on James Alesi, please[edit]

James Alesi is our article on a New York politician who was perfectly obscure last week, before he filed a lawsuit that can only be described as "ill-considered". Mention of this lawsuit has started filtering around the Internet over the weekend, leading to many random IP editors on the article as well as some unfortunate BLP violations being added. At the same time, the article has seen improvements and expansion since then as well, so it would be nice to avoid semiprotection if that's possible. Can we get some watchers on the article for now, please? Gavia immer (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


This user was the subject of a recent ANI on his civility and POV pushing. Most of the users condemned his actions (of which I was one), but agreed that a stern warning, not a block, was a sufficient response. I supported this result, but an admin who had previously interacted with the user noted "that there have to be consequences at some point". Arilang has (thankfully) shied away from civility issues, but I've noticed two very problematic practices that should be brought up and addressed on ANI.

The first, and most important, issue is the egregious amount of copyright violations (WP:PLAGIARISM) by the user. After encountering one of the articles he wrote, I noticed that the writing did not match the style of his talk page contributions, which led me to an investigation of the article. A quick google search revealed that much of the content was taken, or closely paraphrased, off other websites. Going over his contributions, I've noticed a host of other articles with the exact same problems. A few examples from randomly choosing articles off his Articles Created list:

  • From January, 2011. This was taken from the product review on Amazon.
    • Compare "Madame Chiang Kai-shek, beautiful, brilliant, and captivating, was one of the most controversial and fascinating women of the twentieth century" (Wikipedia) with "beautiful, brilliant, and captivating, Madame Chiang Kai-shek... one of the most powerful and fascinating women of the twentieth century". (Amazon)
    • Compare "manipulative “Dragon Lady” and despised her for living in Western-style splendor when most of the Chinese still live in poverty... this book is the result of years of extensive research in the United States and abroad and access to previously classified CIA and diplomatic files." (Wikipedia) with "manipulative “Dragon Lady,” and despised for living in American-style splendor while Chinese citizens suffered under her husband’s brutal oppression... the result of years of extensive research in the United States and abroad, and written with access to previously classified CIA and diplomatic files." (Amazon).
I have moved the related article into my sandbox to work on it when I have more time. Arilang talk 00:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

    • Compare "Becker concedes that the American press reported the famine with accuracy, but leftists and communist sympathisers such as Edgar Snow, Rewi Alley, and Anna Louise Strong, remained silent or played down its severity. The tragedy could have been averted, Becker concludes, after the first year if Mao's senior advisers had dared to confront him (Wikipedia) with "Becker concedes that the American press (especially Joseph Alsop) reported the famine with accuracy, he notes that other Western "foreign experts" who admired Mao, such as Edgar Snow, Rewi Alley, and Anna Louise Strong, remained silent or played down its severity. The tragedy could have been averted, Becker concludes, after the first year if Mao's senior advisers had dared to confront him." (Amazon
I have removed the copyvio content. Arilang talk 00:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • From January, 2011. This was taken from the product description on Amazon. The quotes used in the "review" section are directly copy-pasted off the Amazon list of reviews.
    • Compare "Based on secret and classified Chinese archives documents smuggled out of China...the most important and mythologized communist China leader" (Wikipedia) with "The most important, most mythologized leaders in the history of communist China, based on long-secret documents" and "classified documents spirited out of China". (Amazon)
The related article has been moved to my sandbox to be worked on. Arilang talk 00:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • From December, 2010. This was taken from the product review on Amazon.
    • Compare "controls the government, courts, media, and military, and how it keeps all corruption accusations against its members in-house" with "controls the government, courts, media, and military, and how it keeps all corruption accusations against its members in-house". In this instance, the user did use quotes for the following sentence, but this initial sentence remained unquoted. An anonymous IP removed the segment with the editing summary "Removed copyright violation, new summary", but since (judging by the contributions) the IP's POV is different from Arilang's, I assume this is not Arilang's IP.
I have removed copyvio content. Arilang talk 00:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • From January, 2010. This was taken from a blog posted two days before the article.
    • Compare "which is a satire on the mainland Chinese government’s attempt to “harmonize” China’s Internet with forced installations of Green Dam Youth Escort and the travails of mainland Chinese World of Warcraft players over the last several months" (Wikipedia) with "satirizing the government’s attempt to “harmonize” China’s Internet with forced installations of “Green Dam Youth Escort” and the travails of Chinese World of Warcraft players over the last several months" (Blog).
Not sure about this one, it has been long time since I worked on that article. Arilang talk 02:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • From March, 2009. This was taken from a Guardian review.
    • Compare "The Dream of Ding Village is about a community in Henan where almost everyone is infected with HIV/Aids because of unregulated blood-selling in the 1990s. Far more than any of his previous novels, it is rooted in reality, yet Yan says it is no less surreal" (Wikipedia) with "The Dream of Ding Village is about a community in Henan where almost everyone is infected with HIV/Aids because of unregulated blood-selling in the 1990s. Far more than any of his previous novels, it is rooted in reality, yet Yan says it is no less surreal." (Guardian)
I have removed copyvio content. Arilang talk 00:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • From November, 2008. This was taken from The Times Online
    • Compare with "On 2007 Mr Guo threw down a gauntlet to the ruling Communist Party by declaring that he has formed a underground New People's Party with 10 million members at home and abroad, and he was the acting chairman of the new party."(Wikipedia) and "Last year Mr Guo threw down a gauntlet to the ruling Communist Party by declaring that he was acting as the chairman of the underground New People's Party and claimed 10 million members" (Times)
I have removed copyvio content. Arilang talk 02:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • From October, 2008. This was taken from this About page.
    • Compare "to generate systematic, multi-facted research in the field of Chinese journalism" (Wikipedia) with "position at the doorsteps of China to generate systematic, multi-facted research in the field of Chinese journalism" (About page).
I have removed copyvio content. Arilang talk 02:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • From May, 2009. This was taken from Radio Australia.
    • Compare "Amnesty International says these activities spiked around last year's Beijing Olympics, which drew many protestors/petitioners. It's increased again with the recent Chinese National Congress meeting" (Wikipedia) with "Amnesty International says these activities spiked around last year's Beijing Olympics, which drew many protestors. It's increased again with the recent Congress." (Radio Australia)
I have removed copyvio content. Arilang talk 02:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

And this was just from randomly picking articles off his Articles Created list, a more detailed review of his contributions will reveal more incidents. Since this user has largely worked on topics that most Wikipedians are not interested in, the user's copyright violations have remained undetected, and the damage could be extensive. A search shows that this practice began as early as 2008, and the user currently has 8,707 edits, so there is a massive amount of content that must be reviewed.

These are not isolated cases, this has been occuring for years and it's going to be a headache to deal with. Now, you could argue that Arilang is unaware of Wikipedia's stance on copyright violations, but this is a user that has been here since 2008, it's difficult to believe he can contribute 8000+ edits without encountering WP:PLAGIARISM. Pretending to be innocent through ignorance is not an excuse. He was notified for copyright problems on one of his image uploads, other users have reverted his edits for copyright violations, he should know better.

There's also the second issue, which may be just as worrisome. In his last ANI, he promised to behave, and began to back away from the articles where his edits attract the most criticism. One of the problems identified in the last ANI included Arilang's habit of adding external links that are of his POV, even if they may be unreliable or unrelevant. He's still doing this, but with internal links, look at this article he creates and the link he adds here, under the See Also section. Judge for yourself. This seems like an attempt to flout his promise to behave, a sneaky way to POV push without triggering the scrutiny of the editors that criticised him in his last ANI.

On his last ANI, he was dangerously close to a block and users advised him not to worsen the situation, which he had been doing. While the plagiarism problems were not included in the last ANI, concerns over POV were. I'm not sure what the best response is, but I leave this up to the administrators and editors.--hkr (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In light of the fact that the plagarism is a "new issue" (yes, I know that this is an issue that he should have been aware of, but "should have" is not quite the same as "did know") that he had not been warned about, I am not inclined to advocate for anything other than a warning.
As far as the "sneaky POV pushing," I would advocate now not a one-week cool-off block (which I advocated last time) but a one-month ban from all China-related articles, with an explicit warning that while he could return to them after the one month, if this resumes, he will be blocked at least one month for each instance. I realize that this is a harsh sanction, but I believe that the behavior warrants it. --Nlu (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I would like to protest against the "sneaky POV pushing" label, though on various talk pages I have never try to hide my "strong opinions", but when come to editing on actual articles, I have always tried to write in a neutral style. Arilang talk 11:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you really think that this section is written in a "neutral style"? Don't you see how it would be problematic to link this article under the "See also" section of its subject? Please understand Arilang, I sympathise with your POV at times, but when act like this a few days after your last ANI, editors will take notice.--hkr (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not see the adding Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary to Zhou Enlai is an act of "sneaky POV pushing". On the contrary, it is in the everyday reader's benefit that more info about Zhou as a human being being offered in wikipedia. Arilang talk 12:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
See? It's this type of response that creates the conflicts you've been involved with. A facetious response like "it is in the everyday reader's benefit" tells me that you're not taking this seriously. It's not your job to "benefit" the reader by promoting a bias. Don't you see how your contributions can be construed as POV? No amount of trouting seems to be working.--hkr (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
If Mao Zedong can have Mao: The Unknown Story at the "See also", why is it that Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary became a POV issue when added on to Zhou Enlai article? Arilang talk 12:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The former is an article that has been worked on by many contributors and is (somewhat) neutral. The latter is an article that has solely been written by you, was created a few days ago with a clear POV, misrepresents the book it was written on by "selectively" quoting, and was created to (in my eyes), make a point of avoiding the scrutiny of the editors that typically frequent these articles. Strangely, the article acts as a disservice to the book (it's partially available on Google Books), which is much more moderate in its POV and nuanced in its analysis. I do not like Mao, I think the man is a mass murderer, but I care about neutrality, and this is the straw that broke the camel's back, with your last ANI so recent.--hkr (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I have clean up Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary a bit, to make it more neutral. Since the article has been created new, I shall try my best to turn it into a more neutral article, just give me a bit more time. Arilang talk 14:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I think "selective" quoting might be too kind, "completely changing the tone of" is much more fitting. Compare the version of this section with the article its supposedly attributed to. Notice how the first expresses a negative tone of the subject, while the second is positive. Notice that both are attributed to same author, but make completely different points. He's taking quotes, chopping them up, and rephrasing them to make them support the POV he makes. There are ways of being critical while being neutral. Blatant attempts attempts like this are not. I've defended Arilang in the past, but I'm tired of all the final warnings. And the plagiarism issue remains.--hkr (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There are also copyright problems with his images. This File:People's commune3.jpg, labeled public domain, credits "Google Image Search" as its source.--hkr (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Yes, quite a few of my uploads did get deleted, but I also had created quite a number of articles at commons, and successfully uploaded quite a few jpegs. Arilang talk 12:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have encountered these editing problems before in my previous dealings with Arilang, in which I have noted that he often inserts Google translated Chinese language blog and forum posts, as well as Youtube videos, as references and external links. While I believe that he added these in good faith, considering his time spent editing Wikipedia, I think he really should spend more time to familiarise with Wikipedia guidelines regarding these matters. Thus, I believe Nlu's suggestion of a one-month restriction on China-related articles to be appropriate.--PCPP (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree we have a problem here. If Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary is Arilang's best attempt at writing neutral encyclopedic material, then this is more than just a failure. Given the long history of prior disruption, it becomes clear his presence is a net detriment to the project. I am willing to impose a lengthy block of disruptive editing here. Fut.Perf. 14:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And I'm not convinced he's taken in the message about copyvio after looking at the article. And using Amazon's excerpts from reviews may not be as bad as copyvio but we need links to the originals so we can see the context of the excerpts. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The first paragraph still contains the copyvio that I listed. The sourcing issues with the excerpts are a problem, but I agree with Doug that the priority should be on fixing the copyvios, removing or rewording the unquoted and closely paraphrased content.--hkr (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Main problem here are copyright issues (and frequently RS problems, as in his new article "Zhou Enlai..."). Perhaps the most constructive course of action would be as follows. Ask Arilang1234 to fix all copyright and RS problems he created, give him a couple of weeks for that, and check if he did it. If he can not, I leave this to judgment of more experienced people.Biophys (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The cases that hkr showed are not a comprehensive review of all of Arilang's contributions: they are random articles taken from the list of articles Arilang created. Given his 8000 contributions, the fact that his copyright and other problems go back to at least 2008, and his unsatisfactory record in fixing the articles so far, it would be prudent to open a broad CCI on Arilang's contributions. Quigley (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Quote directly from Arilang1234-"when come to editing on actual articles, I have always tried to write in a neutral style"
Again, let us take a look at Arilang1234's "neutral style" Boxer's anti-civilization and anti-humanity evil doing.Boxer members ...The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme. this whole article which has massive sections written by Arilang1234 stank of POV and pure hatred toward some of the subjects he was written about, such as the Boxers, before admin User:Nlu thankfully deleted much of it Дунгане (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Quote directly from Arilang1234- "Yes, quite a few of my uploads did get deleted, but I also had created quite a number of articles at commons, and successfully uploaded quite a few jpegs"
Is he being serious here? He doesn't seem to have a single clue' regarding rules for uploading images to wikimedia or wikipedia, saying he "successfully uploaded quite a few jpegs", with no evidence that he actually understands why there were allowed to stay on wikimedia while other images were deleted, he evidently has no understanding of public domain or copyright laws. He seems to by playing Russian roulette with his edits. Several entire articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between written English and written Chinese were deleted by Afd, and Arilang1234 himself said Well, your are free to create new articles, as long as they survive AfD, almost as his procedure for writing wikipedia articles was creating them with absolutely no idea of wikipedia rules regarding copyright, content, and neutrality, and seeing whether they get deleted or not.Дунгане (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I have moved Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary into my sandbox to show my sincereness, and I shall try to fix the POV problem from there. Regarding other copyvio problems, give me some times, I shall fix them too. Arilang talk 19:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Cautionary note: let's not turn this into an orgy of criticism. The issues are still: given what we have seen, what measures should be taken, if any? It should not turn into a regurgitation of everything that Ariliang1234 has done on Wikipedia (and criticism thereof), nor should it downgrade into personal attacks (which it has not yet but appears on the cusp of). My recommendation still stands (but I think we need more opinions on this): no blocks, one-month ban from China-related articles (with a block to come if ban is violated). --Nlu (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here. 1. I do not think that creation of Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary can be interpreted as an example of WP:DE by Arilang. 2. Copyright problems. This needs to be assessed. If this is a serious problem in a large number of articles, that's one thing. Otherwise, this just needs to be fixed. When I saw that kind of things in Russia-related articles, I tried to fix them immediately by removing or rephrasing the text and leaving a notice to the user.Biophys (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The earlier version of the article was clearly disruptive. Arilang's later "fixes" to the article after this ANI was brought up, shows that that he does understand what the concept of neutrality is (it's hard to argue ignorance), and acknowledges that his earlier article was pushing a POV. The idea that he is intentionally POV pushing is later reinforced by a comment on this ANI where he defends the act as a "benefit" to the reader. I appreciate that Arilang apologised, I welcome his desire to improve, but sooner or later, he has to understand there are ways to be critical without pushing a POV. User:Greg Pandatshang and User:Ohconfucius are examples of editors critical of the Chinese government, that do an admirable job at remaining neutral.--hkr (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I strongly protest at hkr using "disruptive" to describe the creation of Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary, which is a notable book reviewed by scholars such as Jonathan Spence and others. And regarding all those POV and copyvio problems, I shall be able to fix them when I have more time. Arilang talk 05:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem isn't WP:N, the subject is notable, and notability was never brought up as a concern. The main problem is creating an article with "all those POV and copyvio problems" a few days after being warned about POV, which is disruptive.--hkr (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Nlu, the one-month topic ban from China-related articles could work. And the plagiarism issue, although extensive, can be dealt with at CCI, with the coooperation of Arilang. But, because of the WP:COPYVIO, WP:RS, WP:POVPUSH issues related to Arilang's article creations, I propose that a longer editing restriction on article creation be implemented. Arilang should be, for a time, restricted to creating articles in his sandbox, which can be moved to the mainspace upon review and approval by an admin or uninvolved experienced editor.--hkr (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
To show my sincerity, I have moved Madame Chiang Kai-shek: China's Eternal First Lady into my sandbox to work on any copyvio problems, and I am willing to cooperate with other editors to eradicate any editing errors. Arilang talk 23:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I have done a bit of rewrite on Madame Chiang Kai-shek: China's Eternal First Lady, and Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionaryand hope that it is OK now. Arilang talk 08:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I just found a new one on Plasma economy ("The final crushing irony... etc" from POV as well. Potentially a big problem here. Arilang1234, do you understand the problem of copyright violation? And a serious question; how much content have you copied? The one I found dates from '09. The problem we have here is that the use of Chinese sources causes a complication - we need Chinese speakers to check them for copyvio/plagarism --Errant (chat!) 09:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Cooperation with others[edit]

I have look into articles mentioned by user hkr, and have done quite a bit of cleaning up, and I shall continue to do so, until all the copyvio content is removed. I would like to stress my point again, I am here to contribute, not to disrupt. Please also have a look at the number of articles created by me: Arilang talk 09:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I was extremely forgiving last ANI thread in an AGF manner akin to "really, they won't do this again, who would deliberately get him/herself blocked after coming so close to the edge?", but I have to agree with User:Nlu and User:hrk this go. That's it's been only a few days since last "incident" suggests to me that any kind of block or topic ban would be 100% justified as preventative against further damage to the project. Tstorm(talk) 12:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's a second ANI thread about the same user during just a few days, but the only thing he did between the threads was creating a couple articles about books. He is also currently making an effort to fix the alleged copyright violations [12]. Blocking/banning a user while he is cleaning up his mess would be highly counter-productive. Biophys (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree. Again, I am not questioning Ariliang1234's good faith in remedying the issue. But what I believe is that during the middle of that process, there will be a trigger for something else to occur. I think a one-month ban from the topic area will be good for him, as well as for the rest of us, to get him to take a step back from the topic area and reevaluate. --Nlu (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The issue here isn't that he created the articles (this is not a WP:N problem), it's the content in the articles that's problematic, when you consider that he promised to back off making controversial edits in his last ANI, a few days before. Just compare (using an example I gave on Arilang's talk) what Arilang writes in this section with the actual article it's supposedly attributed to. The former is a negative assessment, the latter is a positive one, and yet both are attributed to the same writer! I've never seen a better example of a WP:COATRACK article. Promoting a POV is one thing, misquoting and altering the meaning of your sources to promote a POV is another, and he should know better. I am not against (hell, often I agree with) Arilang's POV. The problem is how he promotes it unrepentantly, in an egregiously conspicuous and heavy-handed manner. I appreciate that Arilang promises to act in good faith, but if you're going to use Wikipedia as a soapbox (which you shouldn't!), do it with a little finesse.--hkr (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
You started this thread because of the alleged copyright violations by Arilag. Now you also filed a request for copyright investigation. Let's wait what this investigation would produce.Biophys (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
"But I've noticed two very problematic practices". I'm aware of what I said. If this had only been about the plagiarism, I would have gone directly to WP:CCI.--hkr (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to Arilang; you need to make note of the copyvios you find and clean up so that an admin can revdel them --Errant (chat!) 11:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, copyvios are unacceptable in all namespaces. Try working on it offline. MER-C 13:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks to user MER-C and Errantx friendly comments. I have begun checking through all of my copyvios editing, and have since removed quite a few of them. I have promised not to repeat these silly mistakes again. Arilang talk 07:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggested resolution[edit]

On his last ANI, Arilang was reported by another user for problems with WP:CIVILITY, WP:RS, and WP:POVPUSHing. He was let off the hook, but with the self-enforced promise that he back off from the topic that got him into trouble (Chinese politics and Chinese history), a result that I endorsed. However, a few days after his last ANI, he creates a WP:COATRACK article, violating WP:NPOV and WP:RS, on the exact topic he was specifically recommended to back off from. Contrary to my original assessment, I believe it's time for there to be some consequences. This is a user that has been repeatedly warned for his behaviour, and the cycle of "final warnings" and insincere apologies has gone on for far too long. This resolution is considerably less harsher than the one proposed by User:NicholasTurnbull in the last ANI, which proposed a wide-ranging community ban, and takes into account Nlu's suggestions:

  • Arilang1234 (talk · contribs) is subject to a two-month one-month topic ban on editing topics relating to Politics in China and the History of China, except to fix the copyright violations listed in his contributor copyright investigation case. But, in fixing his copyright violations, he cannot add additional content in either 1) a combative or tendentious manner or 2) in repeated violation of Wikipedia policies.
  • Arilang can return after the two monthsmonth, but if this resumes, his next ANI could result in a block or a longer topic ban, possibly indefinite.
  • This is only an article space topic ban, and Arilang can continue to contribute to discussions on the topic, if he so wishes.

I believe this will encourage Arilang to 1) step back and evaluate his actions 2) explore other topics outside the single one he is interested (and unfortunately, sometimes disruptive) in and 3) use the time to correct the copyright violations in his CCI case.--hkr (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. For a more detailed explanation on the "coatrack" incident, see the sixth paragraph under the "Cooperation with Others" subsection above.--hkr (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think two months is too long as an initial ban. (Yes, I had advocated for sanctions in the past, but the sanctions were not agreed to as community consensus. With this becoming the first initial sanction, two months is too long.) I'd still suggest one month. I agree with the scope of the ban being limited to political and historical issues, and So God created Manchester's proposal to allow Ariliang to continue working on copyright issues, I think I agree to as well, with some reservations — I think that's going to be too much of a temptation to write in things that will be POV-pushing or perceived as POV-pushing. I don't necessarily oppose it, but I still think that a simple break from the topic is better. --Nlu (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I see your point. I've reduced it to one month.--hkr (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time. I think the alleged copyright violations must be carefully investigated prior to making any action. As about other issues, this reminds me the Eastern European wikibattles after looking at actions by multiple editors. Now I realize why NicholasTurnbull suggested this resolution. Biophys (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. The massive amount of edits by Arilang1234 will surely turn in a massive amount of copyvio, along with all the unlicensed images he uploaded, no matter how long the topic ban will be, it will possibly take years to fix the copyvio, especially since few people are actually working at the CCI project. Also as i noted above, Arilang1234 doesn't seem to understand why his edits and image uploads are copyvio or unencyclopedic, someone needs to clearly explain to him word by word, at commons people already tried to explain, but apparently he responded by merely switching to uploading at wikipedia rather than commons rather than understanding the rules. In his comment to me on his talk page, he gave the impression as if creating articles which would get deleted later by Afd was almost normal for him, as if he doesn't even know why they are deleted. It has been explained to him multiple times apparently on his talk page and deletion discussions why xxx article was deleted, but he never listened and repeated the same thing again.Дунгане (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Like I have pointed out before, I will try my best to eradicate all the errors created by my wiki edition, and promise not to repeat those "silly" mistakes again. However, shouldn't user Дунгане be busy tidy up his own backyard first?

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Дунгане Arilang talk 07:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Support enaction as an interim solution. However, there are two problems here that I can see. The first is that given the massive amount of copyvio text added by the user, it is questionable whether there is much to be gained from letting him do it again after the ban has expired. It's hard to see any contributions from Arilang in the China article diaspora that are genuinely productive. If it had been the case that Arilang had made good on the various promises that he made here on AN/I in the previous thread, I would have seen this differently. However, it does strike me that Arilang is editing these articles for the purposes of WP:COATRACKing and WP:WARring on the subject, and there are other editors besides Arilang (with whom negative interactions can be observed in his contribs) who will subsequently have to be given similar editing restrictions. This is not a resolution of the problem, and it will probably return back again to AN/I or else the arbcom with this ban alone. I fail to see quite why such an endless address of this dispute is a useful application of our time. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest the following users are also included in the ban: Дунгане (talk · contribs), Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs), Quigley (talk · contribs); all of these users have been involved in warring with Arilang and have not behaved very much better (the first user currently has an open CCI). --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how you pulled me into this. The only interaction I've had with Arilang in recent memory, besides commenting on Arilang's ANIs, is my participation in two tame talk page discussions involving multiple editors. Quigley (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Kintetsubuffalo is actually a pro-Taiwan user, just like Arilang. The evidence that users, who share the same opinions as Arilang (not just Kintetsubuffalo, but sternly anti-Communist users like User:C.J. Griffin), have been repeatedly reverting Arilang's edits, speaks volumes on the quality of Arilang's edits. And I agree that it's unfair to drag Quigley into this, he hasn't interacted with Arilang in a while.--hkr (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
and to User:NicholasTurnbull, if you've seen my editing history, i am rather not concerned with Arilang1234's edits and the content of his articles than his personal insults, which was why i am here. in the past two months i believe there is not an instance of me reverting an edit by arilang1234, and much of the discussion at ANI and the talk pages centered on his insults being flung around. I do not believe topic banning Arilang1234 is a good idea, rather, as in an ANI thread earlier, an editor suggested blocks for insults being hurled around, which would increase in time for every new insult. Дунгане (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
"Enough is enough. I suggest a 1 edit block on both parties if either address any of the terms Seb lists above, or anything essentially similar. Extend this restriction for 90 days. If further issues arise, address within this context. Shadowjams (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)"
When Arilang1234 again started flinging around insults, to User:PCPP, thats when i returned into this ANI dispute, and why i'm here know even though the thread is about copyvio, not insults. I know its not binding but Shadowjams suggestion is a good idea. I will apply myself to Shadowjams suggestion as well, and suggest it be submitted as a proposal, but i have nothing to do with the content dispute and request my username be withdrawn, since i edited nothing on the articles named above by User:So God created Manchester. I do not see my username anywhere on this article, or on virtually 90% of the articles Arilang1234 edited, i have never disputed on most of his work.Дунгане (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Nicholas Turnbull, as a wiki editor, I have one advantage that many wiki editors are lacking: the ability to read both simplified and traditional Chinese, as most of the bilingual editors can only read simplified Chinese. By that I mean I am able to read books and academic documents written in traditional Chinese, and translate them into Chinese, to enrich the content of wikipedia. I know I have been silly before, I would just like to make one more apology, and one more promise: I will do good this time.

And, in response to your above comment, beside Дунгане, who is adding Islam stuff all over the place, and no one ever said anything, PCPP is not an angel, either, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603 Arilang talk 10:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed a useful skill of yours. However, as you probably already know, the English Wikipedia prefers English-language sources over foreign language sources, and reliable source translations of foreign language material over translations by Wikipedians (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources). Whilst in no way would I demean your language skills in this regard or their utility to Wikipedia, I would be concerned that given your track record in misrepresenting source claims that such translations may be more of a vehicle for inserting "opaque" WP:OR into the China articles in such a way as non-Chinese speakers cannot refute the source inclusions. I would therefore be wary about endorsing your efforts in this regard. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
All I can say is, from now on I will do good. Arilang talk 11:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Arilang1234 claimed he was removing "unreferenced content" which had a referenced I have never misrepresented my edits in an edit summary on that article.

There was no significant content dispute, except for the insults being hurled into the article and the talk page, which was why i brought up earlier ANI threads about Arilang1234, due to his constant claims that i speak "pidgin english", which was a rationale he gave for not paying attention to any of my attempts to talk it out with him.

And if editors actually look at my CCI it is over 6 months old, i have already checked dozens of articles and cleaned several, and i have asked 3 admins to work on my CCI case. I asked User:Rjanag to do it but received no response, my request is somehwere in his talk page archives, and i asked one of the CCI admins, User:VernoWhitney to do so but he is frequently busy hunting for other copyviolations. My requests are still availible on his talk page or talk page archives.Дунгане (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

User Дунгане's above 40 plus lines of comment, he/she used "i" about 14 times, "I" about 4-6 times, "english" 3-4 times. When a writer is confused about the use of "i", "I" and "e" "E", it is apparent that he/she really need some basic English writing tuition. My advice to Дунгане is a friendly advice, not a "cheap insult". Arilang talk 02:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"friendly advice", from a user accusing me of speaking pidgin english, who doesn't know how to spell savages and properly grammatically arrange a sentence- "Extremely stupid", not "stupid to the extreme" is very rich. Arilang1234 accused me of speaking Chinglish and Pidgin English, which have negative connotations, and have absolutely nothing to do with capitalization" (Arilang1234 notes that i don't capitalize my i's and english), rather, the distinguishing features of pidgin english and chinglish are incomprehensible and nonsensical grammar which look foolish to a fluent english speaker.Дунгане (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have told everyone that I am not a native English speaker, and I always welcome friendly advice and constructive criticism from other editors. Arilang talk 02:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • OpposeI support the resolution by User:Ohconfucius below.Дунгане (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Off topic - content issues

Reliability of Arilang1234's translation is called into question[edit]

User:Arilang1234 has inserted unreliable translations into articles. saying "You need to be able to read Chinese", claiming that the Chinese communist party "only" attack the KMT and not Japan, yet the majority of the wikisource article he himself wrote in chinese is about the Communist party encouraging attacks against Japan, not just the "Chinese Communist Party only attack KMT", as Arilang claimed here I put the wikisource article through google translate in the link, so everyone can read it, and see that Arilang1234 either cannot read what he himself added to the wikisource article, since he created it, or is just flat out not telling the truth. I don't accuse people of lying lightly, but it appears in this case that Arilang1234 deliberately misrepresented sources.Дунгане (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

And wikisource itself is not accepted as a source for wikipediaДунгане (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The Google machine translated article is here The imperialist occupation of the Chinese Communist Party at the Northeast for the second time the Declaration, a declaration made by the CCP in 1931. In this declaration, Japan/Japanese/Japanese Imperilism was mentioned 16 times, whereas KMT/Kuomintang/Chiang Kai-shek was mentioned 38 times. If this is not enough to show that what is the real target of this War Cry declaration, let's have a look at the slogans at the end of the article:
  • (1)Up!Students in all of China's peasants and soldiers and all the toiling masses!
  • (2)Strike, strike, strike operations, strike, against Japanese imperialism!
  • (3)Participate in all demonstrations and rallies!
  • (4)The masses of armed workers and peasants, students!
  • (5)Automatically obtain the freedom of speech assembly and association publication!
  • (6)Entered into with all the imperialists against the Kuomintang secret of all!
  • (7)Against all imperialism, hit imperialism!
  • (8)The Soviet Union against imperialist attack on the KMT, the armed support of the Soviet Union!
  • (9)Capitulated to imperialism against the KMT, the KMT down!
  • (10)Down with imperialism, the only force supporting the Soviet Red Army!
  • (11)The only support the anti-imperialist movement the Chinese Communist Party leader!
  • (12)Long live the victory of the Soviet revolution in China!

Just look at these War Cry slogans, "Japanese Imperialism" is mentioned only once, whereas KMT/Kuomintang is mentioned four times. You don't need to be a "Professor of Chinese Studies" to work out who(Japanese or KMT) was the real target of this War Cry Declaration. "Elementary, my dear Watson." Arilang talk 01:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Without taking sides, ANI might not be the best place to argue about it, for either of you.--hkr (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggested resolution 2[edit]

I watched Arilang start off on WP, and was impressed by his undoubted enthusiasm for China-related-topics, and for starting articles which were potentially worthy subjects for this encyclopaedia. I also noted, however, the often mediocre quality of articles he created. The articles are often problematic in terms of language, content, political bias, and structure; he also tends to use a majority of Chinese language sources (often for want of English language sources because these are matters of little interest to the Western world), which poses problems for verifiability. In the past, he has invited me to examine some of his work, but not all have been sufficiently interesting to me; not all subjects are notable, IMHO. I have gone in and corrected, for example, his version of the Deng Yujiao incident, making significant content, style and referencing changes. I will just say I have not experienced any bitter confrontations with him, but his apparently poor interaction with certain others comes as little surprise, as he has very strong opinions which he expresses vocally in talk pages, but also has a tendency of permeating his content work with. I had hoped that he would have better learned the ropes of Wikipedia since he arrived in 2008, but he appears to be carrying on being aware only of WP:BOLD as policy. What I find of greatest